So in practice what is the possibility this will not result in low quality and even more malicious default configurations? It’s not like hardware manufacturers are known to bundle all kinds of crap into their systems right?
European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
551–560 of 975 posts
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#552Earlier quoted context omitted.
But Apple pre-installs it on Apple’s phones. Apple can do whatever they want on Apple phones. Google is forcing installations on Samsung phones, LG phones, etc through their contract. It is entirely possible what Apple is doing would be illegal IF they licensed/sold the OS to other OEMs.
Yeah, what Google is learning here is that you should never license your OS/sell to other manufacturers and never make it open-source and just go the Apple route instead, create the device yourself and make the OS completely proprietary and closed.
Exactly.
This is so back-asswards.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#553Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hopefully it isn't yet another case of smug Europeans preening and going "Oh, you stupid Americans, our regulators are different and would never levy gigantic fines. Instead, they come give you a hug and have a cup of tea and politely ask you to please stop, and they would never ever in a billion years abuse this extremely wide-ranging law for political ends!"
Every time a US company is fined there are people that claim it is all protectionism and punishment with nothing to back it up (ironic, considering the degree of protectionism the US engages in). They are just sour that their precious tech companies are being brought to task for behaving like shitty house guests by not following the rules. These companies might be able to get away with whatever the hell they please b…
I find this nationalist concern for a global corporation amusing. Does Alphabet consider itself American? Its shareholders live all over the world.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#554Earlier quoted context omitted.
Name an industry that doesn't use their position in one market to gain influence in another.
Most companies aren't in multiple different markets. Honestly your comment is pretty much kindergarten level argumentation, so I think that maybe you should just take your ball and go home. The question was regarding to the logic behind why Google is getting fined, while Apple is not, and I think I answered that question pretty well.
> Most companies aren't in multiple different markets.
If you sort public companies by Market Capitalization, how far down the list do you think you need to go, before you find a company that is only in one market?
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#555ITT Americans don't care about companies (especially American ones) that abuse their positions as monopolies.
I do care about companies that abuse their position as a monopoly. I think its probably right that Google gets fined for not allowing companies to sell Android forks. What I have a problem with is that if a company is doing some standard business practice, like paying a different company to exclusively use their product, that is okay when they are a not a monopoly but that suddenly become not okay because they have b…
Yes, laws are in place to to protect customers from abuse of monopoly power. In this case specifically using that power to hurt competition unfairly. If the company is successful and doesn't abuse that success then no one gets fined. Using that success to unfairly hurt competition from a monopoly position needs to be prevented for a free market to function.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#556In comparison, anyone know how much total Microsoft have paid for its antitrust case so far ?
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#557Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also Internet Explorer. This case seems almost a mirror of MS except in the phone space instead of PC. Only difference is that when the issue came up in Congress, MS was confrontational with regulators and Google cut some fat checks.
The other main difference it that the EU is punishing Google, while turning a blind eye to Microsoft's behavior. They were only fined for bundling IE and WMP with their OS. Locking customers out of competing operating systems is much more harmful in my opinion. The only EU mention of Windows bundling I can find is an Italian court ordering that customers should be able to get a refund for the Windows tax.
I'd say that, in this day and age, preventing vendors from using Android forks counts as a form of locking customers out of competing operating systems. Even more so now that Android forks represent the only serious alternative available to any phone manufacturer who isn't based in Cupertino.
Also, two wrongs don't make a right. Microsoft getting off way too easy does not mean that Google should get off easy, too.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#558Earlier quoted context omitted.
That first claim is clearly wrong though. Firstly, Android doesn't have a monopoly. Apple does fine in Europe and their devices can be bought everywhere. Secondly, there are device makers that didn't cut a deal with Google, notably the Amazon phones and tablets. They weren't that popular with consumers but that's not Google's fault: it just means consumers highly value the additional services Google provides.
> Firstly Android doesn't have a monopoly. The EU commission doesn't think so. Their press release* says that 80% of smart mobile devices in Europe, run on Android. * http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-4581_en.htm
Well, there's nothing all that special about the output of a political commission. And the fact that 1 in 5 devices don't run Android would seem to contradict the monopoly accusation.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#559Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because a monopoly is a special status that infers special powers and special responsibilities. I'm not sure what is so hard to understand in that.
>Because a monopoly is a special status that infers special powers and special responsibilities. In principal I have a problem with legally treating a company different if they have 85% market share as opposed to 30%. I am okay with making anti-competitive practices illegal but we should also enforce those on small companies.
The idea is that it is almost by definition more difficult or impossible for a small player to conduct anti-competitive practices, since there are other competitors to choose from.
Re: European Commission fines Google €4.34B in Android antitrust case
#560Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's read the law: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL... >Article 102 >Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States. >Such abuse may, in particular, consist in: >b) limiting production, markets or techni…
How is that not clearly breaching d? They're a part of the same suite of apps that provide the "Android experience" (Google experience, whatever -- the thing that most consumers think of when they consider Android). They manifestly have a profound connection with each other. And let's be clear here lest there be any confusion -- zero customers want a vendor to do anything different, and the only reason some vendors w…
> why does my BMW have a BMW entertainment system?
Because BMW has not entered an abusive relationship with a dominant player in the car entertainment system market who would only license the popular system to BMW on the condition that 1) BMW won't develop their own version, and 2) will bundle other software packages also developed by the dominant player.